Talk:Symphony No. 41 (Mozart)

Brahms key relationships

 * It is interesting to note that the four notes that comprise the main theme of the finale movement of the Jupiter Symphony coincide exactly with the keys of Brahms' four symphonies (c minor, D Major, F Major, e minor) - perhaps a subtle indication of the composer's incredible admiration for Mozart's music.

Is there a source for this? It seems to me like too original a conclusion for us to draw on our own. EldKatt (Talk) 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The last part of that statement seems incorrect to me. Wouldn't Mozart have used those four notes because of HIS admiration for Brahms, and not the other way around? IHudson 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Mozart died long before Brahms was even born. EldKatt (Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are correct. I should have reviewed the composers' dates before making that post. IHudson 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the note. It seems like a fluke to me.  If someone can find a reference that Brahms intended this, then we can put it back.  Brahms had no idea he was going to write four (and only four) symphonies and he wrote them over a period of twenty years.  DavidRF 01:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, guys...the relationship between the keys of Brahms' Symphonies and the first four notes of the primary theme of K. 551 is nothing more than coincidence and is at best simply a mnemonic...Nymaestro 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The major-third relationships between the movements of Brahms' first, though, are no coincidence at all :) ELSchissel (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For that matter, why don't we also draw a parallel between the key relationships of Schumann's 4 Symphonies? They are Bb-C-Ed-D--which is the "Jupiter" theme a whole step lower? Nymaestro 02:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unscholarly content--article needs to be rewritten
I am very disappointed with the content of this article. There are many subjective references which do not belong in a Wiki article, such as:

"the symphony carries an Olympian weight to it" "boldness of the first subject" "greatest examples of development in music" (this is a basically meaningless statement) "developed with astounding complexity"

These are stated by the writer as fact, but are subjective statements without references--otherwise known as "original research".

The George Grove quote, while presumably an accurate attribution, is more of a statement about Grove's impression of the work, and not of the work itself.

This article must be rewritten.Nymaestro 04:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that this is Wikipedia. If you don't have the time to rewrite the article from scratch, why not just delete the bits you don't like? I don't know about you, but with removing the bits you identify as "subjective references," the article becomes quite passable. I have not doublechecked the Grove citation, so I'll leave it alone for now. Jindřichův Smith 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, don't delete -- George Grove was a major figure in musical history, and his views do have a place in an encyclopaedic article. But they belong under "Responses and Reception", not under the objective description of "Movements"; I'm with Nymaestro on that.  Moving it involves more than cut-and-paste, so best if the original author does it.  Wyresider (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Haydn 39
By the way, Haydn's 39th Symphony is in g minor, and doesn't have a fugal finale. Someone who knows how to edit Wikipedia better than I do, please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rma2108 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong Haydn. Its his brother's 39th (follow the link).  I'll edit the article to make clear that distinction.DavidRF (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the older Haydn did write a finale featuring the famous 1-4-3-2 theme in counterpoint for his Symphony No. 13 (Haydn) twenty-five years earlier. The connection wouldn't be anywhere near as direct as the contemporaneous Michael Haydn symphonies, but it could be worth a mention.DavidRF (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the original score?
Can anyone add the history of the autograph (ie, original) score and where it is today? This would be a great thing to do for all the great symphonies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "NMA: Critical Report" link has information about the "autograph". Its in German, though, so I don't understand it.DavidRF (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving item to talk page
Hello I'm moving this to the talk page, it seems informative about Woody Allen (whose taste we can admire) but it's not really a fact about the 41st Symphony. Perhaps it could go in a pop-culture supplement article along with similar contributions.


 * The character played by Woody Allen in his film Manhattan lists "the second movement of the Jupiter Symphony" as one of the things that makes "life worth living".

Opus33 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditters von Dittersdorf connection
"The celebrated finale of the symphony is a re-working, albeit a majestic one, of the opening movement of Carl Ditters's symphony in D, Der Sturz Phaëtons (The Fall of Phaëton) of 1785." Is there a source for this? The Dittersdorf movement is in 3/4 and although Mozart's 4-note motto does appear (as a component of the main theme, not as its opening motive), the Mozart finale is in no sense a "reworking" of Dittersdorf's Allegro. Jperrylsu (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

1789 Performance
"within his lifetime" - there is a concert notice for a Gewandhaus program with two symphonies and two piano concertos (plus Ch'io mi scordi di te) from May 12 1789, I believe, led by the composer; the symphonies were nos. 38 and 41. (probably described as new symphonies in D and in C, of course, since that numbering is a late-19th-century thing.) Given this fact, why do we suggest there's no evidence that the work was performed in his lifetime? Is there reason to believe this program notice is misleading? Do we need "photos or it didn't happen?", is that our standard of proof? :) ("Mozart at the Gateway to his Fortune", chapter 2.) ELSchissel (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)